California Passes Bill to Stop Publishers Killing Games

43 to 16. That's the vote count from California's State Assembly on AB 1921, better known as the Protect Our Games Act, a bill that would force publishers to either keep their games playable after shutting down servers or hand out refunds. The bill passed largely along party lines, with 41 Democrats voting yes and 15 Republicans voting no, plus two Republican yes votes and one Democratic no vote. Twenty-one assembly members were absent.

This is the biggest legislative win the Stop Killing Games movement has scored in North America, and I think the location matters more than the margin. California is home to Activision Blizzard, Riot Games, and a significant chunk of the ESA's membership. Getting a bill like this through the Assembly floor in the industry's own backyard sends a signal that the ESA's lobbying didn't land the way it needed to.

The bill's requirements are straightforward. Publishers of server-dependent games released or resold after January 1, 2027 would need to give players at least 60 days' notice before pulling the plug. After that, they'd have to provide some way to keep the game running, whether through offline access, community server support, or another workable method. If none of that is feasible, full refunds. The bill text also prohibits selling games that have already lost publisher support. Free-to-play and subscription-based games are exempt.

What comes next

The bill now heads to the California State Senate, where Assembly Member Chris Ward said committee debate is expected in June. The ESA has already pushed back, arguing that the bill "could force developers to spend limited time and resources keeping old systems running instead of creating new games." Stop Killing Games responded by calling it "the same fight as in Europe: a grassroots consumer movement asking for basic end-of-life protections, versus the industry lobby trying to preserve the right to sell games that can later be rendered useless while preserving control."

I've watched publishers kill game after game over the past two years, from The Crew to Concord to the recently announced shutdown of Destruction AllStars, and the ESA's argument that this bill doesn't reflect "how games actually work today" rings hollow. How games work today is that you pay full price for something a publisher can brick whenever the quarterly numbers stop looking good. That's the problem the bill exists to solve.

The timing lines up with momentum elsewhere. Stop Killing Games' European Citizens' Initiative secured 1.3 million signatures earlier this year, and European Parliament hearings on the issue wrapped up in May with a reply expected in the coming weeks. One area to watch on the California side is how the Senate interprets "ordinary use" and "core features," since the bill defines those based on how a game was marketed at the time of purchase. For a game like The Crew, where single-player required always-online servers, that distinction is clear. For games with a mix of online and offline modes, the line gets blurrier. If the Senate passes it, it still needs the governor's signature before becoming law.